06-16-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2238 May 14,1997 Page 2 Summary of request: In 1995 applicant requested variance approval to enclose the area under his existing 8*x24' deck on the east side of the house. The Building Inspector noted this would require continuous 42" frost footings, and that the existing deck could not be used as a roof. Variance approval was granted by Council on October 9,1995, subject to a requirement for specific hardcover removeils including an 800 sf gravel driveway and the 120 sf detached deck located at the shoreline. Applicant never signed the approval resolutions and the variance ^proval expired on October 9,1996. In March 1997 the Building Inspector, during an inspection of other remodeling work on the house, found that applicant had in fact enclosed the area under the deck without permits, without the appropriate variance being in effect, and without having completed any hardcover removals. In fact, the gravel driveway to the lake now has new gravel added to it. Applicant now requests afrer-the fact tqiproval to allow the enclosure under the deck to remain; and is concurrently proposing a 30'x32' (960 sf) detached garage (which will be located to meet setback requirements). This building will provide additional inside storage for a number of items currently stored outside. It is not known whether the large RV stored at the site will fit inside, but storage of this vehicle might be more appropriate outside the 0-75' zone. The removal of the two remaining sheds on the property will be an improvement. Structural coverage on the overall property will be 2887 sf or 6.2%. Enclosure As Constructed Does Not Meet Building Code The construction of the enclosure under the deck does not meet building code standards, and there is no building code defuiition of a "temporary structure" as suggested to staff by the applicant. Even if the enclosure is ultimately granted variance approval, it will have to be dismantled in order to be rebuilt to meet the building code. Applicant has not provided construction plans for the enclosure. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement regarding the need for inside storage for vehicles and other equipment, and he notes a security concern due to the new Maxwell Bay public landing. Applicant has not provided any hardships in regards to the deck room enclosure. Hardships and justifications for this enclosure were enumerated in Resolution #3611 (Exhibit F). Hardcover Applicants surveyor has provided a revised hardcover worksheet which does not reflect a shed that has been removed in the 0-75' zone. The 800 sf gravel driveway in the 0-75' zone has been re graveled rather than revegetated. This driveway appears to have been in place in the past, but its %